Militant Atheism

[Willamena]

Many theist purposely teach academics, fighting the fanaticism and fundamentalism in their own religion.

YOUR reply has nothing to do with atheism, and EVERYTHING to do with what is right in academia.

I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

 

[outhouse]

I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

I figured as much.

The claim you made against atheist also applies to many good theist.

 

[Jumi]

Excellent article, thanks. The "militant" atheist is the one who strives to make real changes in the world to the effect of minimizing the influence of religion and belief in god or gods.

So a militant theist would be someone who wants to make real changes to the world increasing belief in god(s) and the influence of religion.

 

[Shad]

Ok great, that is what I meant - can you identify an example? A person who has done that. No worries.

Yes, a friend of mine left the JW's due to her upbringing and actions of her mother. She is now an atheist but has never heard of any arguments against theism. Her reasons were purely based on experience and emotions, at times creates by these very experiences. She was born into the JW's, never heard the classical arguments for theism, she was indoctrinated and suffered a lot of emotional abuse from her mother. Her entire view on theism and atheism is that of appeals to emotions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Militancy is combatitiveness. Dawkins is combatative.

Richard Dawkins is no more combative than the average liberal Christian minister. Would it make sense to call, say, the United Church "militant"?

 

[Shad]

Militancy is combatitiveness. Dawkins is combatative.

That is not being militant. Most of his "combativeness" is based on religions indoctrinating children with beliefs that are contradicted by modern science and create issues with the education system.

 

[Willamena]

The claim you made against atheist also applies to many good theist.

You mean the concept that I described.

So?

 

[outhouse]

You mean the concept that I described.

So?

So what you stated has nothing to do with militant atheist since so many theist are guilty of the same thing.


As I stated quite clearly in my first reply, its a matter of academia fighting fanaticism of theist who need to be corrected.

 

[Willamena]

So what you stated has nothing to do with militant atheist since so many theist are guilty of the same thing.

That's like saying being red has nothing to do with apples because pomegranates are red. It makes no logical sense.

And besides which being militant isn't a crime.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's like saying being red has nothing to do with apples because pomegranates are red.

No, it isn't.

Your redefinition of "militant" is either hypocritical (if you don't apply it to theists in a similar way) or doesn't bear any resemblance to how the word is actually used (if you do apply it that way).

 

[Jumi]

Calling someone (who is peaceful) a militant can make it easy to trivialize them, if they seem to be right and kind of annoying to one's position.

 

[outhouse]

That's like saying being red has nothing to do with apples because pomegranates are red. It makes no logical sense.

And besides which being militant isn't a crime.

It makes no sense to you, not the rest of that see a hypocritical statement that applies to theist as well who use academia to fight fanaticism.

Fighting fanaticism is not just an atheist thing that can be labeled as militant.


Your confusing supporting academia by theist and atheist, and then throwing on a biased self imposed label of militant. It just not right to do.

 

[outhouse]

That's like saying being red has nothing to do with apples because pomegranates are red.

Wrong

 

[Willamena]

No, it isn't.

Your redefinition of "militant" is either hypocritical (if you don't apply it to theists in a similar way) or doesn't bear any resemblance to how the word is actually used (if you do apply it that way).

I described militancy in regard to atheists. It can apply in regards to other things as well, as any good adjective can.

I don't think it hypocritical at all to describe militancy in regards to atheists.

 

[Cephus]

So a militant theist would be someone who wants to make real changes to the world increasing belief in god(s) and the influence of religion.

Which is exactly what we see in the world with groups like ISIS and Boko Haram, as well as Christian crazies like Scott Lively and Westboro, etc. These people want to push their beliefs on everyone and require extraordinary support and rights for religion that is not shared by anyone else.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think it hypocritical at all to describe militancy in regards to atheists.

But fighting fanaticism is not militancy. It Is the right thing to do.


Militancy against normal theism is wrong however, and is not a part of typical atheism.

 

[Cephus]

But fighting fanaticism is not militancy. It Is the right thing to do.


Militancy against normal theism is wrong however, and is not a part of typical atheism.

I don't see much of a difference, really. It's like only fighting against the KKK and ignoring "normal" racism. It's all wrong, it's all bad, it's all worth fighting against, at least conceptually.

 

[Willamena]

But fighting fanaticism is not militancy. It Is the right thing to do.

Again, I can only reply, "So?" I have no argument against this.

Militancy against normal theism is wrong however, and is not a part of typical atheism.

But it occurs.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, a friend of mine left the JW's due to her upbringing and actions of her mother. She is now an atheist but has never heard of any arguments against theism. Her reasons were purely based on experience and emotions, at times creates by these very experiences. She was born into the JW's, never heard the classical arguments for theism, she was indoctrinated and suffered a lot of emotional abuse from her mother. Her entire view on theism and atheism is that of appeals to emotions.

Uh huh, and what is the issue with that?

 

[Shad]

Uh huh, and what is the issue with that?

Emotional experiences do not refute a claim, simple as that. It is fallacious reasoning thus is irrational. Just as the emotions created by religion and forms of creationism does not refute evolution.